University Positioning in AI Policies: Comparative Insights From National Policies and Non-State Actor Influences in China, the European Union, India, Russia, and the United States

IF 2.3 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Sevgi Kaya-Kasikci, Chris R. Glass, Eglis Chacon Camero, Ekaterina Minaeva
{"title":"University Positioning in AI Policies: Comparative Insights From National Policies and Non-State Actor Influences in China, the European Union, India, Russia, and the United States","authors":"Sevgi Kaya-Kasikci,&nbsp;Chris R. Glass,&nbsp;Eglis Chacon Camero,&nbsp;Ekaterina Minaeva","doi":"10.1111/hequ.70062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper introduces a novel four-dimensional analytical framework to examine how universities are positioned within national artificial intelligence strategies amid intensifying geopolitical competition. Through systematic document analysis of policy frameworks across eight major global actors—the United Kingdom, Russia, India, the European Union, China, the United States, BigTech, and UNESCO—we identify distinct governance typologies that determine higher education's role in artificial intelligence ecosystems. Our findings quantify significant variations in how universities are instrumentalized across governance contexts—from talent pipelines in market-led systems to state-directed innovation hubs in centralised approaches. We document the emergence of value-aligned ‘strategic education blocs’ replacing universal academic networks, with India demonstrating unexpected leadership in education-specific policy provisions. This research advances the theoretical understanding of “technological statecraft” in higher education, demonstrating how the interplay between sovereignty concerns, regulatory philosophies, value systems, and public-private dynamics creates systematically different operating environments for universities across geopolitical contexts. These findings provide critical benchmarks for understanding institutional positioning in the global artificial intelligence landscape and challenge conventional internationalisation frameworks in an era of technological nationalism.</p>","PeriodicalId":51607,"journal":{"name":"HIGHER EDUCATION QUARTERLY","volume":"79 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hequ.70062","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HIGHER EDUCATION QUARTERLY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hequ.70062","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper introduces a novel four-dimensional analytical framework to examine how universities are positioned within national artificial intelligence strategies amid intensifying geopolitical competition. Through systematic document analysis of policy frameworks across eight major global actors—the United Kingdom, Russia, India, the European Union, China, the United States, BigTech, and UNESCO—we identify distinct governance typologies that determine higher education's role in artificial intelligence ecosystems. Our findings quantify significant variations in how universities are instrumentalized across governance contexts—from talent pipelines in market-led systems to state-directed innovation hubs in centralised approaches. We document the emergence of value-aligned ‘strategic education blocs’ replacing universal academic networks, with India demonstrating unexpected leadership in education-specific policy provisions. This research advances the theoretical understanding of “technological statecraft” in higher education, demonstrating how the interplay between sovereignty concerns, regulatory philosophies, value systems, and public-private dynamics creates systematically different operating environments for universities across geopolitical contexts. These findings provide critical benchmarks for understanding institutional positioning in the global artificial intelligence landscape and challenge conventional internationalisation frameworks in an era of technological nationalism.

Abstract Image

大学在人工智能政策中的定位:来自中国、欧盟、印度、俄罗斯和美国的国家政策和非国家行为体影响的比较见解
本文介绍了一个新的四维分析框架,以研究在地缘政治竞争加剧的情况下,大学如何在国家人工智能战略中定位。通过对英国、俄罗斯、印度、欧盟、中国、美国、大科技和联合国教科文组织这八个主要全球参与者的政策框架进行系统的文件分析,我们确定了不同的治理类型,这些类型决定了高等教育在人工智能生态系统中的作用。我们的研究结果量化了大学如何在治理环境中被工具化的显著差异——从市场主导系统中的人才管道到中央方法中国家指导的创新中心。我们记录了价值观一致的“战略教育集团”的出现,取代了普遍的学术网络,印度在教育特定政策规定方面出人意料地发挥了领导作用。本研究推进了对高等教育中“技术治国”的理论理解,展示了主权问题、监管理念、价值体系和公私动态之间的相互作用如何在地缘政治背景下为大学创造系统不同的运营环境。这些发现为理解全球人工智能格局中的机构定位提供了关键基准,并在技术民族主义时代挑战了传统的国际化框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
HIGHER EDUCATION QUARTERLY
HIGHER EDUCATION QUARTERLY EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
9.10%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Higher Education Quarterly publishes articles concerned with policy, strategic management and ideas in higher education. A substantial part of its contents is concerned with reporting research findings in ways that bring out their relevance to senior managers and policy makers at institutional and national levels, and to academics who are not necessarily specialists in the academic study of higher education. Higher Education Quarterly also publishes papers that are not based on empirical research but give thoughtful academic analyses of significant policy, management or academic issues.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信